About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
. they are saying congress decided this in 1970. it's out of our hands. we, the obama administration, the justice department, have an obligation to enforce the law as it stands, and that right now is in direct conflict with two states, washington and colorado. let alone with the states that have medical marijuana in place which is over 18. because one of the criteria for being a schedule 1 narcotic is that there's no medical use demonstrated. so that is a fascinating conflict between the feds and states rights. people voting in these states increasingly to legalize at least medical marijuana. >> is there any sort of spillover effect you can see here on to other laws like immigration issues or gay marriage or anything else like that because i would think that the white house would not want to be seen as picking and choosing where it decides the federal government is supposed to be in charge. >> you are right. eio ctu w iue courts or congress can do is to actually address the fact that schedule 1 narcotics do -- in this case, may have medical use. at least 18 states have done so. and members of con
every year of the obama administration and now, we're at historic highs. the same as we were five years ago. the difference is, our spending has increased a trillion dollars. >> yeah, but a lot of that spending is things to help the economy. it's the payroll tax cut extension, which your party supported. it's extending unemployment benefits. it's things like that. t the war. >> that's going to be the challenge of the whole perspective. we've got two philosophies. one says we're spending too much. the other saying we're not spending enough. that's hurting our economy. obviously, the last four years have been more focused on the spending. we continue to pile up more and more debt, we've crossed 100% of debt to gdp. >> but you're line of thinking, the tax side, so we end up spending more thanks to democrats and the country is going to a worst place. >> the context is really important on this. in 2003 when tax rates were brought down. and then in 2010, we were still in a bad place, the president and democrats said the economy's weak, we can't raise taxing on anybody, including the upper 2%
year in the obama administration, and now we're at historic highs. the difference is our spending increased a trillion dollars from five years ago, but the revenue is the same. >> a lot of that spending is things to help the economy, right? it's the payroll tax cut extension, which your party supported, right? it's extending unemployment benefits and things like that. it's the war. >> right. that's going to be the challenge of the whole perspective right now. we have two philosophies. one is saying we're spending too much and the other is saying we don't spend enough. obviously the last four years are spending more to stimulate. i'm not sure if that will work long-term. we've crossed 100% of debt to gdp. i don't think that gets better as you get higher. >> the only thing that confuses me about it, i feel like in a situation where all you do is keep cutting taxes and have a revenue problem, right? you give a tax cut to the middle class you don't want it to take it away from them. you keep giving out things p and you never take them back. >> well, that's the same thing we did on the
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)